Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Parent Emeritus
Would This Be too Devious?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hexemaus2" data-source="post: 391323" data-attributes="member: 4560"><p>In my granddaughter's case, difficult child 1 and hubby had no jobs and no home. Rae was staying on and off with my sister in law. It would start as a "for the weekend" thing, with them not coming to get her for weeks on end. We didn't complain because it meant I got to see Rae (as the Demon Mother of Doom, I wasn't "allowed" to come see Rae when she was with them...but sister in law and I snuck visits when I dropped off diapers, or just "stopped by," not knowing Rae was still there. *cough*) And it meant Rae was in a stable home with food, a bed, and people who took care of her.</p><p> </p><p>However, as things progressed, it became obvious (finally) to DFCS that difficult child 1 & hubby weren't going to get their act together. sister in law had a signed agreement with difficult child 1 and hubby to take care of Rae temporarily. It was made part of DFCS safety plan. Eventually, DFCS gave them the option to either come into court and make it official or DFCS would take them to court and get custody. </p><p> </p><p>The way it worked here, because they voluntarily signed over custody to sister in law, DFCS was only there to facilitate court proceedings. They are not involved with custody any more now, so sister in law didn't get a foster care stipend. (She would only get that if DFCS had custody and placed Rae in her home as a foster child, as opposed to difficult child 1 signing over custody directly to sister in law.) However, she can (and has) applied for state assistance for Rae (food stamps, medicaid, etc.) She gets it regardless of her income, since Rae is considered a "ward" and thus not a legal part of sister in law's family. Now, if difficult child 1 and hubby want to regain custody, they have to file a petition with the court for a hearing and demonstrate stable employment and housing. They can't just go to DFCS any more to get help getting Rae back.</p><p> </p><p>In our situation, DFCS served only as facilitator to get in front of a judge and put pressure on difficult child 1 and hubby. Now that sister in law has legal custody, her only involvement with DFCS is with benefits for a ward (who GA law sees as a separate family unit, thus not subject to the same income limitations that sister in law's kids would be.)</p><p> </p><p>In our situation, this was the smart way to go. It puts up more roadblocks to them regaining custody. Now, not only do they have to get jobs and housing, but hire a lawyer and file a petition. It meant sister in law had to give up the possibility of a stipend, but since I still have control over difficult child 1's trust (what little is left, anyway) I pay child support on difficult child 1's behalf. Technically, I was suppose to cut her a check for the balance when she turned 18, but she knows the $$ goes to Rae and she'd play holy heck if she tried to take me to court over it. (And we all know the likelihood of difficult child 1 actually paying the support herself if I were to turn over the trust. I'd have a better chance of winning the lottery twice in one week.)</p><p> </p><p>It might pay to give a call to DFCS/CPS in your area and ask for their advice in regards to the grands. In our case, DFCS recommended getting a signed agreement first. It was only after that & realizing we (sister in law and I) were right about difficult child 1 that they helped us make it official. Thanks to them, no one had to put out money for an attorney, and DFCS was there to back sister in law up if difficult child 1 and hubby had tried to come take Rae back with only the temp agreement in place. They would have IMMEDIATELY filed for custody and removed Rae to foster care had difficult child 1 tried to void the agreement. (Hence making it a part of difficult child 1's safety plan, so they could document need for immediate placement if need be.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hexemaus2, post: 391323, member: 4560"] In my granddaughter's case, difficult child 1 and hubby had no jobs and no home. Rae was staying on and off with my sister in law. It would start as a "for the weekend" thing, with them not coming to get her for weeks on end. We didn't complain because it meant I got to see Rae (as the Demon Mother of Doom, I wasn't "allowed" to come see Rae when she was with them...but sister in law and I snuck visits when I dropped off diapers, or just "stopped by," not knowing Rae was still there. *cough*) And it meant Rae was in a stable home with food, a bed, and people who took care of her. However, as things progressed, it became obvious (finally) to DFCS that difficult child 1 & hubby weren't going to get their act together. sister in law had a signed agreement with difficult child 1 and hubby to take care of Rae temporarily. It was made part of DFCS safety plan. Eventually, DFCS gave them the option to either come into court and make it official or DFCS would take them to court and get custody. The way it worked here, because they voluntarily signed over custody to sister in law, DFCS was only there to facilitate court proceedings. They are not involved with custody any more now, so sister in law didn't get a foster care stipend. (She would only get that if DFCS had custody and placed Rae in her home as a foster child, as opposed to difficult child 1 signing over custody directly to sister in law.) However, she can (and has) applied for state assistance for Rae (food stamps, medicaid, etc.) She gets it regardless of her income, since Rae is considered a "ward" and thus not a legal part of sister in law's family. Now, if difficult child 1 and hubby want to regain custody, they have to file a petition with the court for a hearing and demonstrate stable employment and housing. They can't just go to DFCS any more to get help getting Rae back. In our situation, DFCS served only as facilitator to get in front of a judge and put pressure on difficult child 1 and hubby. Now that sister in law has legal custody, her only involvement with DFCS is with benefits for a ward (who GA law sees as a separate family unit, thus not subject to the same income limitations that sister in law's kids would be.) In our situation, this was the smart way to go. It puts up more roadblocks to them regaining custody. Now, not only do they have to get jobs and housing, but hire a lawyer and file a petition. It meant sister in law had to give up the possibility of a stipend, but since I still have control over difficult child 1's trust (what little is left, anyway) I pay child support on difficult child 1's behalf. Technically, I was suppose to cut her a check for the balance when she turned 18, but she knows the $$ goes to Rae and she'd play holy heck if she tried to take me to court over it. (And we all know the likelihood of difficult child 1 actually paying the support herself if I were to turn over the trust. I'd have a better chance of winning the lottery twice in one week.) It might pay to give a call to DFCS/CPS in your area and ask for their advice in regards to the grands. In our case, DFCS recommended getting a signed agreement first. It was only after that & realizing we (sister in law and I) were right about difficult child 1 that they helped us make it official. Thanks to them, no one had to put out money for an attorney, and DFCS was there to back sister in law up if difficult child 1 and hubby had tried to come take Rae back with only the temp agreement in place. They would have IMMEDIATELY filed for custody and removed Rae to foster care had difficult child 1 tried to void the agreement. (Hence making it a part of difficult child 1's safety plan, so they could document need for immediate placement if need be.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Parent Emeritus
Would This Be too Devious?
Top